PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Frontiers in Education· 2026Q1

Participation in a computational thinking and educational robotics elective and change in reasoning and complex problem-solving: a matched longitudinal study of a population-based regional cohort

Thomas Leitgeb, Wolfram Rollett, Katja Scharenberg

Short summary

Students who took a computational thinking and educational robotics (CT&ER) elective showed significantly greater improvements in reasoning and complex problem-solving compared to peers who chose other electives.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • CT&ER elective participation linked to greater improvements in system knowledge, systematicity, and reasoning.
  • Students in the CT&ER group showed a standardized change-score difference of d=0.48 for system knowledge and d=0.32 for numeric reasoning.
  • Improvements in system control were observed, but were more pronounced in students from more prosperous families.
  • Findings are based on a propensity-score-matched longitudinal quasi-experimental design of 802 students.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Introduction This study examines whether participation in a computational thinking and educational robotics (CT&ER) elective is associated with differential change in reasoning and complex problem-solving among lower secondary students in Burgenland, Austria. Methods From a regional cohort of 1,676 seventh-grade students at all 38 public middle schools, 1,383 participated. In this longitudinal quasi-experimental design, students who chose the elective Coding & Robotik (C&R; n = 404) were compared with students who chose other electives (n = 979). Principal analyses were conducted on a propensity-score-matched sample of 401 pairs (N = 802). Reasoning was assessed at t1 and t3 (KFT 4-12+R: figural and numeric) and dynamic problem-solving at three occasions (DYNAMIS-based tasks assessing system knowledge, exploration systematicity, and system control). Results The C&R group showed greater change than the control group on all outcomes. Standardized change-score differences were d = 0.48 for system knowledge, 0.30 for systematicity, and −0.23 for system control (negative values indicate improvement; task-count-invariant metric), and d = 0.32 for numeric and 0.33 for figural reasoning. All five effects held in multilevel models with random intercepts for schools and students and in baseline-adjusted analyses. Exploratory within-group analyses showed largely comparable change across sociodemographic subgroups, with one exception that survived correction for multiple testing in all three specifications estimated on the matched sample: students from more prosperous families showed larger gains in system control. Discussion Because computational thinking itself was not measured and assignment was not randomized, these findings establish association rather than causation and warrant replication in randomized designs with direct measurement of computational thinking.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Frontiers in Education, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Computer Science Applications

Computer Science ApplicationsComputer Science